Electric Metals (USA) Limited Receives Expanded Mineral Resource Estimate FOR the Emily Manganese Project, Minnesota. the Highest-Grade Manganese Deposit IN North America.
ELECTRIC METALS (USA) LIMITED RECEIVES EXPANDED MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE FOR THE EMILY
MANGANESE PROJECT, MINNESOTA. THE HIGHEST-GRADE MANGANESE DEPOSIT IN NORTH AMERICA.
• 20.9% increase in total Indicated Resources to 6.2 million tonnes with average manganese grade
of 19.27% and 596.5% increase in Inferred Resource to 4.9 million tonnes with average
manganese grade of 17.50%, using a 10% cutoff grade
• 64.2% increase in total Indicated Resources to 14.5 million tonnes with average manganese grade
of 12.06% and 800.1% increase in Inferred Resource to 9.6 million tonnes with average
manganese grade of 12.11%, using a 5% cutoff grade
• Three primary zones of manganese mineralization modeled
• Large tonnage expansion associated with initial drilling of the central zone of the deposit
• Eastern in-fill drilling and central step-out drill holes undertaken at approximately 100m spacing
• Western zone of the deposit open and recommended for future expansion
Toronto, Ontario, April 9, 2024 – Electric Metals (USA) Limited (“ EML” or the “ Company”) (TSXV: EML)
(OTCQB: EMUSF) is pleased to announce the receipt of the expanded Mineral Resource Estimate for the
100% owned Emily Manganese Project in central Minnesota. Emily is the highest -grade manganese
deposit in North America. The Mineral Resource was prepared in accordance with National Instrument 43-
101 (“NI 43-101”) by Forte Dynamics, Inc. (“Forte”).
The Mineral Resource Estimate is based on a geological model incorporating data from 29 diamond core
holes drilled by Electric Metals in 2023 in the eastern and central portion of the Emily Manganese Deposit,
and historical drilling data from 7 diamond cor e holes drilled in 2011 and 2012 in the eastern portion of
the deposit. The drilling overlays a planned, but not executed, former U.S. Steel iron ore – manganese
mine proposed in 1959. The current estimate confirms and expands the previous Mineral Resources. The
current estimate is based on the most detailed geological model of the Emily Manganese deposit to date,
which significantly enhances the understanding of grades and zonation within the deposit.
The Emily Manganese Deposit is in the northern portion of Minnesota’s Cuyuna Iron Range in Crow Wing
County, near the town of Emily. The Emily Deposit, a sedimentary iron deposit, is hosted by rocks of the
Paleoproterozoic Animikie Basin, an e arly Proterozoic geologic terrane, which occupies much of east
central Minnesota. The stratigraphy, structure, and high -grade manganese mineralization within these
rocks is the result of long periods of sedimentation, deformation, and erosion along the ancestral southern
margin of the Superior Craton. The Cuyuna Iron Range is traditionally divided into three districts, the Emily
District, the North Range, and the South Range. While mined principally for iron ore, l arge quantities of
manganese were extracted as manganiferous iron ores from several mines in the Cuyuna Iron Range from
1911 to 1967.
Further details supporting the geological model and the resource model estimation procedure will be
available in an NI 43-101 Technical Report disclosing the results of the Resource Estimate which will be
posted under the Company’s profile at www.sedar.com within 45 days.
Brian Savage, CEO, Electric Metals, commented “ We're thrilled to announce the expanded Mineral
Resource Estimate for our Emily Manganese Project in Minnesota, solidifying our position as a key player
in North America's manganese market. This significant increase in both Indicated and Inferred Resources
underscores our dedication to maximizing the po tential of the deposit. Our next objectives include
conducting further drilling to progress these resources into a mineable reserve and conducting additional
metallurgical testing to refine and optimize the flow sheet.”
Results of the current Mineral Resource Estimate (Table 1) are as follows:
Table 1: NSM Emily Classified Mineral Resource Estimate (k metric tonnes)
Domain Class Cutoff
(Mn%)
Tonnage
(kt)
Density
(g/cm³) Mn (%) Fe (%) SiO2 (%)
High
Grade
Indicated
15 4,242.46 3.08 22.37 21.73 25.75
10 5,897.21 3.11 19.69 22.46 29.13
5 6,640.57 3.11 18.40 22.57 30.51
Inferred
15 3,178.09 3.12 20.26 20.43 29.69
10 4,818.23 3.15 17.61 20.36 32.29
5 5,442.12 3.13 16.52 20.17 33.58
Domain Class Cutoff
(Mn%)
Tonnage
(kt)
Density
(g/cm³) Mn (%) Fe (%) SiO2 (%)
Low
Grade
Indicated
15 21.97 3.06 16.50 15.40 29.43
10 337.12 2.97 11.98 21.55 33.80
5 7,834.08 2.88 6.69 21.89 44.38
Inferred
15 6.65 3.13 16.32 16.08 26.27
10 96.44 3.09 12.09 24.65 32.61
5 4,160.72 2.86 6.34 20.44 34.16
Domain Class Cutoff
(Mn%)
Tonnage
(kt)
Density
(g/cm³) Mn (%) Fe (%) SiO2 (%)
Total
Indicated
15 4,264.43 3.08 22.34 21.70 25.77
10 6,234.33 3.10 19.27 22.41 29.38
5 14,474.66 2.98 12.06 22.20 38.02
Inferred
15 3,184.74 3.12 20.25 20.42 29.68
10 4,914.67 3.15 17.50 20.44 32.29
5 9,602.84 3.01 12.11 20.29 33.83
Notes:
1. CIM Definition Standards (2014) were used for reporting the Mineral Resource Estimate.
2. The effective date of the estimate is December 31, 2023.
3. The Qualified Persons associated with this Mineral Resource Estimate are:
− Ms. Amanda Irons, CPG & Senior Resource Geologist, Forte Dynamics,
− Mr. Donald H. Hulse, PE & Director of Mining Resources, Forte Dynamics, and
− Dr. Deepak Malhotra, SME-RM & Director of Metallurgy, Forte Dynamics.
4. All resources were considered potentially extractable via underground mining scenarios.
5. A three-dimensional geological model was produced in LeapFrog Geo.
6. The Emily Iron Formation (Peif) is separated into six subunits (Peif1-Peif5, and Peif1r), with zones in four subunits
(Peif1-3, Peif1r) used the Resource Estimate.
7. Mineralization occurred in two domains withing Peif 1 and Peif 3 which were estimated as separate domains
using 3 dimensional cutoff shells based on 10% Mn to segregate as high-grade and low-grade populations.
8. A total of 730 specific gravity measurements were taken, and s pecific gravity was estimated on Peif subunits,
averaging 2.88 for low-grade and 3.11 for high-grade.
9. Resource estimation used a 4m x 2m x 1.5m, orthogonal, non-rotated block model using LeapFrog Edge software.
10. Grade estimates use inverse distance to the second power (ID2), within each domain.
11. Capping was applied per Peif subunit by high and low grade domains, with Peif1-1r HG at 47% Mn and 36% Fe,
Peif1-1r LG at 16% Mn and 36% Fe, Peif2 at 20% Mn and 36% Fe, Peif3 HG at 30% Mn and 50% Fe, and Peif3 LG
at 16% Mn and 50% Fe.
12. For the high -grade combined Mn domains, a distance limit of 80 meters was used to classify indicated and
inferred material. Indicated and inferred for the combined low-grade domains uses an average distance limit of
100 meters.
13. For potential economic extraction, the mineral resource reported was limited to an area with a Mn grade greater
than 5% and thickness greater than 4 meters, representing the minimum thickness assumed for effective mining.
14. Manganese recovery was estimated at 95%, based on the current metallurgical tests.
15. Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
16. The quantity and grade, or quality is an estimate and is rounded. Quantities may not sum due to rounding.
Figure 1 represents the recent drilling campaigns and property boundary.
Figure 1. Map of Drillholes and Emily Property Boundary
Block Model
The block model used for resource estimation is a 4m x 2m x 1.5m, orthogonal, non-rotated block model.
Block grade estimation was completed using LeapFrog Edge software. Grade estimates use inverse
distance to the second power (ID2), within each domain. Blocks were estimated with a single pass search
at about 1.5 variogram ranges for the Mn domains, and 1.5 of the variogram ranges for the Fe and SiO2
domains.
Potential cutoff grades for the models were estimated using U.S. $100 - $160/tonne for mining, processing,
and administrative costs, a 95% Mn recovery rate, and U.S. $1,000 - $3,000/tonne for the sales price of
battery grade manganese sulphate monohydrate (MnSO4).
Based on these ranges the QP estimated potential cutoff grades in percent contained manganese and the
sensitivity is shown in Table . This shows a range of cutoff grades from 2% to 6% Mn. Although there is a
sizable mineral resource above 5% manganese, the mineral processing consultants have indicated that
certain efficiencies are possible with higher feed grades. Due to the nature of the deposit, there is a
continuous core of material greater than 10% that results in an average grade of ~18%, potentially bringing
these efficiencies to the operation. The QP suggests that the mineral resource be reported at 5%
Manganese while evaluating the potential of higher grade.
Table 2: Cutoff Grade Sensitivity
Cutoff
%Mn
Total Operating Cost US$/tonne
100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Price
US$/t
MnSO4
1000 3.82 4.21 4.59 4.97 5.35 5.74 6.12
1500 2.55 2.80 3.06 3.31 3.57 3.82 4.08
2000 1.91 2.10 2.29 2.49 2.68 2.87 3.06
2500 1.53 1.68 1.84 1.99 2.14 2.29 2.45
3000 1.27 1.40 1.53 1.66 1.78 1.91 2.04
Notes:
1. Variable operating costs were utilized in the models, from U.S. $100 - $160/tonne for mining, processing,
and administrative costs.
2. Value was only attributed to manganese, with variable product pricing from U.S. $1,000 - $3,000/tonne for
battery grade manganese sulphate monohydrate (MnSO4).
A visual review of the block model shows good agreement between block and composite grades.
Figure 2. Cross Section of Block Model looking West
Qualified Person
The scientific and technical data contained in this news release was reviewed and approved by Mr. Donald
E. Hulse, who is a Qualified Person under National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral
Projects.
About Electric Metals (USA) Limited
Electric Metals (USA) Limited (TSXV: EML) (OTCQB: EMUSF) is a U.S.-based mineral development company
with manganese and silver projects geared to supporting the transition to clean energy. The Company’s
principal asset is the Emily Manganese Project in Minnesota, which has been the subject of considerable
technical studies, including a National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report – Resource Estimate, with over
US$26 million invested to date. The Company’s mission in Minnesota is to become a domestic U.S.
producer of high purity, high value manganese metal and chemical products for supply to U.S. energy,
technology and industrial markets. With manganese playing a critical and prominent role in lithium -ion
battery formulations, and with no current domestic supp ly or active mines for manganese in North
America, the development of the Emily Manganese Project represents a significant opportunity for
America, the State of Minnesota and for the Company’s shareholders.
For further information please contact
Brian Savage
CEO and Director
(303) 656-9197
Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the
policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
Forward-Looking Information
This news release contains “forward-looking information” and “forward-looking statements” (collectively,
“forward-looking information”) within the meaning of applicable securities laws. Forward -looking
information is generally identifiable by use of the wo rds “believes,” “may,” “plans,” “will,” “anticipates,”
“intends,” “could”, “estimates”, “expects”, “forecasts”, “projects” and similar expressions, and the negative
of such expressions.
Forward-looking statements in this news release include, but are not limited to, statements with respect
to the announcement of an updated mineral resource and the ability of Electrical Metals to produce
battery grade high purity manganese sulphate monohydrate (HPMSM) and other high-grade manganese
products from the Emily Manganese Project ore.
These statements address future events and conditions and so involve inherent risks, uncertainties and
other factors that could cause actual events or results to differ materially from estimated or anticipated
events or results implied or expressed in such forward-looking statements. Such risks include, but are not
limited to, the failure to obtain all necessary stock exchange and regulatory approvals. Forward -looking
information is based on the reasonable assumptions, estimates, analysis and opinions of ma nagement
made in light of its experience and perception of trends, current conditions and expected developments,
and other factors that management believes are relevant and reasonable in the circumstances at the date
such statements are made. Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could
cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward -looking information, there may
be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated. There can be no assurance that such
information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those
anticipated in such information. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking
information.
All forward-looking information herein is qualified in its entirety by this cautionary statement, and the
Company disclaims any obligation to revise or update any such forward-looking information or to publicly
announce the result of any revisions to any of the forward-looking information contained herein to reflect
future results, events, or developments, except as required by law.